成唯識論了義燈 1.108

1.108

法謂軌持。本疏釋云：軌為軌範，可生物解。持謂任持，不捨自相。此意能有屈曲軌範，表彰差別生物，解者隨增名軌。不為屈曲表彰，但直生解，即名為持。持自性故，緣無為等，生解之時，通得名法。不是定說，無及真如，不能生解，故名為持。今於總一法名，分為軌持。不爾，軌持二言何別？又以軌持，疏有四對，不是如次配前軌持，但隨所應，為其四對，准義配取，并《樞要》中，聖教世間對。《樞要》解云：「此中皆依增上義說。前四解通世間聖教，第五別配。」若解此釋，西明引立，無亦名軌，如《因明論》立我為無，亦得名軌，徒設劬勞。有解不得本疏主意，救此義，云：以我體無為疎所緣緣，以無體故，不能生解。親緣有體，生解名軌，亦是徒施。有云：復引《瑜伽論》，軌通有法、無法、有為、無為、若有、若無俱名論軌，亦應自息。《要集》復云：有說四對，辨持、軌異、無為、無法，唯持非軌，義即難尋。復引《楞伽》真智緣如。乃至云後得智，緣遠從本質，生解名論軌，亦無有失者。此不異前，何煩廣說？又引《瑜伽》五十二云：「由二種緣，諸識得生。乃至意、法。」答：由能軌持諸五識身所不行義故。佛世尊假說名法，五識不行，通為、無為，既欲證無及如名軌。復引通語，如無軌言。不解本釋，徒為證據。應尋前解，經論無違。

'Phenomenon' (dharma) means holding to a standard (guichi). The basic Commentary explains: 'Gui means a model standard, which can give rise to an understanding in living beings. Chi means sustaining, not abandoning its own characteristic.' The meaning of this is: being able to possess an intricate model standard, displaying distinctions and giving rise to understanding in living beings, is predominantly called gui. When it does not form an intricate display, but directly gives rise to understanding, it is called chi, because it sustains its own nature. When understanding arises while taking the unconditioned and so forth as objects, it can generally be called a phenomenon. It is not definitively said that the non-existent and tathatā cannot give rise to understanding and therefore are called chi. Now, the single comprehensive name 'phenomenon' is divided into gui and chi. Otherwise, what difference would there be between the two words gui and chi? Furthermore, regarding gui and chi, the Commentary has four pairs; they are not matched strictly in order to the preceding gui and chi, but rather form four pairs as appropriate, matched according to the meaning, together with the pair of holy teachings and the worldly in the Chuyao. The Chuyao explains: 'Here, all are explained based on their predominant meaning. The first four explanations apply commonly to the worldly and the holy teachings, whereas the fifth matches them separately.' If one understands this explanation, then Ximing citing and establishing that the non-existent is also called gui—just as in the Hetuvidyā-śāstra establishing the self as non-existent can also be called a 'model of debate' (lungui)—was a futile effort. Some who failed to grasp the intention of the basic Commentary's author attempted to salvage this meaning, saying: 'Because the substantial entity of the self is non-existent, it acts as a distant object-condition (dālambanapratyaya); because it lacks a substantial entity, it cannot give rise to understanding. When an immediate object possesses a substantial entity, giving rise to understanding is called gui'—this too is applied in vain. Some say: Citing further the Yogācārabhūmi that gui applies broadly to existent phenomena, non-existent phenomena, the conditioned, the unconditioned, and that both the existent and non-existent are called 'models of debate' (lungui), this should also subside of itself. The Yaoji further says: Some explain the four pairs to distinguish the difference between chi and gui: the unconditioned and non-existent phenomena are solely chi and not gui, the meaning of which is difficult to find. Citing further the Laṅkāvatāra that true wisdom takes tathatā as object, and even that when subsequent wisdom takes an object, it gives rise to understanding from a remote fundamental essence, which is called a 'model of debate' (lungui) without error—this is no different from before, so why bother explaining it at length? It also cites Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle 52: 'Due to two kinds of conditions, the consciousnesses are able to arise, ... up to the mind and phenomena.' Answer: 'Because they can hold to a standard the meanings not operated upon by the five consciousness-bodies, the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, conventionally designates them as phenomena.' That which is not operated upon by the five consciousnesses covers both the conditioned and unconditioned. Since they wish to prove that the non-existent and tathatā are named gui, they further cite general phrasing, like the word 'no standard' (wugui). Failing to understand the basic explanation, they cite evidence in vain. One should seek the former explanation, and sutras and treatises will not conflict.